8/5 vs Jays

[illinoisredsox]

Randy

 

Put the UOTE] back at the beginning of post 120 after the [Q; otherwise its going to screw up all replies to it (not to mention without it, it's unreadable.

 

Ditto post 7087 in the Realistic View thread.

 

Better, just put your reply below your quoted post. It harder to delete format that way.

Edited August 6, 2023 by illinoisredsox

[Duran Is The Man]

[QWorst fielding 3B in all of MLB. He wears a glove for no apparent reason.UOTE=Oscars;1552559]Devers on pace for 20 errors.

Yuk

 

Kike had another throwing error tonite in SD, giving him 16 on the year.

[Randy Red Sox]

ok thanks

Randy

 

Put the UOTE] back at the beginning of post 120 after the [Q; otherwise its going to screw up all replies to it (not to mention without it, it's unreadable.

 

Ditto post 7087 in the Realistic View thread.

 

Better, just put your reply below your quoted post. It harder to delete format that way.

[redsoxrules]

 

Kike had another throwing error tonite in SD, giving him 16 on the year.

 

He also played a position he shouldn't of been playing. Meanwhile this IS Devers natural position.

[Duran Is The Man]

Kike had another throwing error tonite in SD, giving him 16 on the year.

 

He also played a position he shouldn't of been playing. Meanwhile this IS Devers natural position.

 

i agree. Devers was second in MLB in errors in '18, 2nd in '19, 1st in '20, 5th in '21 and now 2nd this year. pitiful.

[redsoxrules]

Meanwhile I get crucified for having a legit opinion that they overpaid way too much for Devers because of this.

[Bellhorn04]

Meanwhile I get crucified for having a legit opinion that they overpaid way too much for Devers because of this.

 

It's a legit opinion. I like Devers and am glad to have him, but they blew it spectacularly by not retaining a much better player in Betts.

[Randy Red Sox]

isn't that the truth and it will become even more evident when Verdugo the centrepiece of that transaction is traded.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It's a legit opinion. I like Devers and am glad to have him, but they blew it spectacularly by not retaining a much better player in Betts.

 

When they lost Betts, I guaranteed they'd eventually blow Mookie money on a much lesser player.

 

But after all, Betts is already 14th all-time on bb-ref JAWS rankings for rightfielders. He has a 56.4 rating... the career average of 28 Hall of Fame RFers is 56.7.

 

Mookie is 30 years old.

[moonslav59]

isn't that the truth and it will become even more evident when Verdugo the centrepiece of that transaction is traded.

 

One could argue Wong has already become the "centerpiece," although not at the time.

 

To me, once we decided Betts was being traded and forced half Price into the deal, we did pretty good getting 5 years each of Verdugo and Wong.

[moonslav59]

When they lost Betts, I guaranteed they'd eventually blow Mookie money on a much lesser player.

 

But after all, Betts is already 14th all-time on bb-ref JAWS rankings for rightfielders. He has a 56.4 rating... the career average of 28 Hall of Fame RFers is 56.7.

 

Mookie is 30 years old.

 

It really sucked we lost him. To think he's basically getting paid the same as Devers really slams the door on that choice made on not extending him. Since we don't really know what number he might have accepted, maybe the Devers comp is not fair, and inflation has influenced the comp, as well, but still. We lost a generational talent and the face of the franchise.

 

I really wanted to keep him. I could be wrong, but I think I suggested the biggest offer on this board- something like $400M/14 or something longer with years than anyone else, so as to bring down the AAV.

 

That being said, the comp should really be 1 year of Betts and Price vs Dugo, Wong, Downs and what we did with that extra money in 2020.

 

If you want to count Betts and his extension into the equation, fine, but it is flawed in many ways. That being said, if you go by WAR and count all of Betts and Price and then compare to Dugo, Wong and Dwons, plus who they signed with the monetary differential, who do pick as the players that reach the desired amount? If you choose the best signings, my guess is the Sox side of the ledger would win. If you choose the worst for the money, the Dodger side would likely win. I'm thinking a neutral method would yield results that would make it close to even, but I could be wrong.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It really sucked we lost him. To think he's basically getting paid the same as Devers really slams the door on that choice made on not extending him. Since we don't really know what number he might have accepted, maybe the Devers comp is not fair, and inflation has influenced the comp, as well, but still. We lost a generational talent and the face of the franchise.

 

I really wanted to keep him. I could be wrong, but I think I suggested the biggest offer on this board- something like $400M/14 or something longer with years than anyone else, so as to bring down the AAV.

 

That being said, the comp should really be 1 year of Betts and Price vs Dugo, Wong, Downs and what we did with that extra money in 2020.

 

If you want to count Betts and his extension into the equation, fine, but it is flawed in many ways. That being said, if you go by WAR and count all of Betts and Price and then compare to Dugo, Wong and Dwons, plus who they signed with the monetary differential, who do pick as the players that reach the desired amount? If you choose the best signings, my guess is the Sox side of the ledger would win. If you choose the worst for the money, the Dodger side would likely win. I'm thinking a neutral method would yield results that would make it close to even, but I could be wrong.

 

There's no way the Red Sox win this one, ever. Even if -- baseball gods forbid -- Mookie suffers a career-ending injury today, he's a Hall of Famer, based on JAWS and WAR compared to all-time RFers (and not Harold Baines).

 

You can add up all the guys Bloom got back in the trade, and everyone else he spent the savings on, and it still comes down to this --

 

Hall of Famer in his prime lost: ONE. Hall of Famers brought back in exchange: ZERO

[Old Red]

There's no way the Red Sox win this one, ever. Even if -- baseball gods forbid -- Mookie suffers a career-ending injury today, he's a Hall of Famer, based on JAWS and WAR compared to all-time RFers (and not Harold Baines).

 

You can add up all the guys Bloom got back in the trade, and everyone else he spent the savings on, and it still comes down to this --

 

Hall of Famer in his prime lost: ONE. Hall of Famers brought back in exchange: ZERO

 

No matter how many years you get out of Dugy, Wong, or anyone else it will never be as good as what Mookie would give you.

[dgalehouse]

Try as some folks may, there is no way you can spin trading Mookie Betts into a wise move.

[Jasonbay44]

Try as some folks may, there is no way you can spin trading Mookie Betts into a wise move.

 

100%. Mookie is a generational talent. When you get those guys, you don’t trade them.

[moonslav59]

Try as some folks may, there is no way you can spin trading Mookie Betts into a wise move.

 

Nobody is using the word "wise." I was against trading him and think it was a mistake.

 

That does not mean I can't judge the trade made on it's results.

 

Try as some posters may, the trade and the signing are separate issues.

[dgalehouse]

Anyway, the Sox had the Jays on the ropes and without their closer , but somehow found a way to mess it up.

[moonslav59]

100%. Mookie is a generational talent. When you get those guys, you don’t trade them.

 

Who, here, disagrees?

 

The issue goes beyond the decision in a bubble.

 

Let's assume we extended Betts and had the same budget restrictions we had the next 4 years. How does our roster look, right now?

 

I'm not sure we could have traded Price or even half Price , by himself to gain some budget relief.

 

We didn't even replace the $45M we "saved" in 2020, that year, so in theory, we'd have had to trade/dump other higher paid players to meet the budget demands.

 

It's almost impossible to know, where we'd be had we kept Betts.

 

I do agree, 100%, we should have kept Betts, but I think it would have had to be coupled with increased budgets in 2020, 2021, 2022 and maybe 2023.

 

 

 

[Jasonbay44]

Who, here, disagrees?

 

The issue goes beyond the decision in a bubble.

 

Let's assume we extended Betts and had the same budget restrictions we had the next 4 years. How does our roster look, right now?

 

I'm not sure we could have traded Price or even half Price , by himself to gain some budget relief.

 

We didn't even replace the $45M we "saved" in 2020, that year, so in theory, we'd have had to trade/dump other higher paid players to meet the budget demands.

 

It's almost impossible to know, where we'd be had we kept Betts.

 

I do agree, 100%, we should have kept Betts, but I think it would have had to be coupled with increased budgets in 2020, 2021, 2022 and maybe 2023.

 

 

 

When you have a guy like Mookie you make it work. How much is this team spending on guys like Sale, Kluber and Kike Hernandez to contribute negatives? They could have made it work, they didn’t.

[Old Red]

When you have a guy like Mookie you make it work. How much is this team spending on guys like Sale, Kluber and Kike Hernandez to contribute negatives? They could have made it work, they didn’t.

 

And they didn’t even try.

[Bellhorn04]

Losing Betts is 100% on ownership IMHO. I'm sure Dombrowski would have offered him whatever it took. And Bloom was the guy who was tasked with the trade.

[moonslav59]

Losing Betts is 100% on ownership IMHO. I'm sure Dombrowski would have offered him whatever it took. And Bloom was the guy who was tasked with the trade.

 

DD could not have offered what JH would not have agreed to offer.

[a700hitter]

When you have a guy like Mookie you make it work. How much is this team spending on guys like Sale, Kluber and Kike Hernandez to contribute negatives? They could have made it work, they didn’t.

++1